Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Pelosi & Fluke...WEIRD

The special hearing ginned up by Minority Leader Pelosi the other day before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee so that a law-student could lecture it account there not being a woman on a panel that appeared before a Senate committee earlier represented the same situation. There was no male present on the panel when the law-student made her speech because there was no panel. She probably wasn’t even sworn.

The subject in both hearings had to do ostensibly with responsibility (or not) of both government and private entities regarding contraceptive devices. The Senate hearing had nothing to do with health but with government accountability vis-à-vis church/state issues. Pelosi’s hearing had to do with…well, who knows?

The third-year law-student, Sandra Fluke, actually was an activist, not just some gal caterwauling about how mean white men, both of the cloth and Congress, wage war against women. She’s a past-president of something called the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. She said she was on a public interest scholarship, whatever that is, and that an entire summer salary (didn’t say doing what) was gobbled up, presumably because of those old white guys, just paying for contraceptives, obviously an outrage perhaps leading to unwanted pregnancies requiring the final resort – abortion or just having the brat.

Fluke said this to Super-heroine Pelosi (actually to all those TV cameras, the actual purpose of the fiasco): “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” A month’s supply of condoms can be bought at Walmart or Target for $9, so apparently this couple may be eating only on alternate days. Fluke didn’t say. You can’t make up this stuff.

Fluke mentioned another woman who couldn’t get birth control stuff even though she’s a lesbian who needed it for a medical problem. Her insurance company apparently didn’t buy that but Fluke didn’t mention whether or not the lady’s doctors might have suggested alternative “medicines” or activities.

Fluke provided the perfect example of the “liberated woman,” who is free to engage in whatever delights she desires – or even in medical problems – with the caveat that somebody else has to pay for those indulgences, even if their spiritual convictions militate against such support. This was the matter before the Senate committee. Pelosi tried to turn it on its head and looked silly in the process, attempting to make clerics, especially, into Satan incarnate. After all, don’t third-year law students lack the sense to know how to ward off pregnancy, and they certainly should not be expected to traumatize themselves psychologically by using common sense in handling fits of passion.

Okay…it’s all about “reproductive justice.” Isn’t someone or some protest movement all about some sort of justice (actually lack of it) these days? Well…yes, though usually these folks are more interested in some sort of “mercy,” not justice. The Occupy Wall Street gang was all about economic justice last year, when what they actually wanted was the mercy of having the infamous one-percent gang subsidize their lifestyles. The weather is improving so they will be at it again soon but most likely not with Obama’s help during an election year.

According to the Merriam-Webster, 11th edition, justice is: “a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; b: JUDGE; c: the administration of law.” Just is defined as: “having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: REASONABLE.” So…what is the “reproductive justice” that so enthralls Pelosi and Fluke and, presumably, requires total support by the taxpayers, whether they like it or not or whether or not it violates religious convictions?

Pelosi and Fluke seem to think that reproductive justice can be achieved by the legislative process, i.e., governmental fiats concerning the bearing, or not, of children, with government and insurance companies making all the decisions applying thereto and based on the use of contraceptives. This implies, of course, that whatever government, particularly, decides is REASONABLE. This takes the responsibility for procreation, or not, from the potential makers of children and places it in the hands of government. Nice! This is the way it’s done in China, where even family-size is determined by government.

By definition, Pelosi/Fluke would consider an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment, not a reward accruing to the act of passion. Since justice must be served “reasonably,” the man and woman should be shielded by the government from an unwarranted PUNISHMENT, ergo, the body politic should see to it that they are not mistreated by fumbling into a pregnancy, thereby protecting them from themselves, which is what socialism is all about. The answer: unlimited access to – drum-roll, please…VOILA! – birth-control vehicles designed to preserve justice, peace of mind and forestalling the vicissitudes connected to having a baby. Egad!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: